GST Council Meeting: Key Rate Reductions Proposed for 28% Bracket, Compliance Simplification, and Efficiency Enhancements Discussed.
News
GST
Recommendations made during 31st Meeting of the G
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Recommendations made during 31st Meeting of the GST Council held on 22nd December, 2018 (New Delhi)-Rate changes
GST
Dated:- 22-12-2018
GST Council in the 31st meeting held on 22nd December, 2018 at New Delhi took following decisions relating to changes in GST rates on goods and services. The decisions of the GST Council have been presented in this note for easy understanding. The same would be given effect to through Gazette notifications/ circulars which shall have force of law.
I GST rate reduction on goods which were attracting GST rate of 28% :
* 28% to 18%
* Pulleys, transmission shafts and cranks, gear boxes etc., falling under HS Code 8483
* Monitors and TVs of upto screen size of 32 inches
* Re-treaded or use
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
), frozen, branded and put in a unit container
* Vegetable provisionally preserved (for example by sulphur dioxide gas, in brine, in sulphur water or in other preservative solutions), but unsuitable in that state for immediate consumption.
III. GST on solar power generating plant and other renewable energy plants
* GST rate of 5% rate has been prescribed on renewable energy devices & parts for their manufacture (bio gas plant/solar power based devices, solar power generating system (SGPS) etc) [falling under chapter 84, 85 or 94 of the Tariff]. Other goods or services used in these plants attract applicable GST.
* Certain disputes have arisen regarding GST rates where specified goods attracting 5% GST are supplied along with service
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Certain important issues referred by GST Council to various Committees / GoM
GST
Dated:- 22-12-2018
The GST Council in its 31st meeting held today at New Delhi decided to refer the following issues to Committees / GoM indicated against them:
* Extending the Composition scheme to small service providers. The rate of tax and threshold limit to be proposed – Law Committee and Fitment Committee.
* Tax rate on lotteries – Committee of States.
* Taxation of residential property in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Recommendations made during 31st Meeting of the GST Council
GST
Dated:- 22-12-2018
The GST Council in its 31st meeting held today at New Delhi made the following policy recommendations:
* There would be a single cash ledger for each tax head. The modalities for implementation would be finalised in consultation with GSTN and the Accounting authorities.
A scheme of single authority for disbursement of the refund amount sanctioned by either the Centre or the State tax authorities would be implemented on pilot basis. The modalities for the same shall be finalized shortly.
* The new return filing system shall be introduced on a trial basis from 01.04.2019 and on mandatory basis from 01.07.2019.
* The due date for furnishing the annual returns in FORM GSTR-9, FORM GSTR-9A and reconciliation statement in FORM GSTR-9C for the Financial Year 2017 – 2018 shall be further extended till 30.06.2019.
* The following clarificatory changes, inter-alia, shall be carried out in t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
STR-9;
* Value of “non-GST supply” shall also include the value of “no supply” and may be reported in Table 5D, 5E and 5F of FORM GSTR-9;
* Verification by taxpayer who is uploading reconciliation statement would be included in FORM GSTR-9C.
The due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-8 by e-commerce operators for the months of October, November and December, 2018 shall be extended till 31.01.2019.
The due date for submitting FORM GST ITC-04 for the period July 2017 to December 2018 shall be extended till 31.03.2019.
ITC in relation to invoices issued by the supplier during FY 2017-18 may be availed by the recipient till the due date for furnishing of FORM GSTR-3B for the month of March, 2019, subject to specified conditions.
All the supporting documents/invoices in relation to a claim for refund in FORM GST RFD-01A shall be uploaded electronically on the common portal at the time of filing of the refund application itself, thereby obviating the need for a taxpayer to physically
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of the date of the email, the said refund applications shall be summarily rejected, and the debited amount, if any, shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger of the claimant.
One more window for completion of migration process is being allowed. The due date for the taxpayers who did not file the complete FORM GST REG-26 but received only a Provisional ID (PID) till 31.12.2017 for furnishing the requisite details to the jurisdictional nodal officer shall be extended till 31.01.2019. Also, the due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-1 for the period July, 2017 to February, 2019/quarters July, 2017 to December, 2018 by such taxpayers shall be extended till 31.03.2019.
Late fee shall be completely waived for all taxpayers in case FORM GSTR-1, FORM GSTR-3B & FORM GSTR-4 for the months / quarters July, 2017 to September, 2018, are furnished after 22.12.2018 but on or before 31.03.2019.
Taxpayers who have not filed the returns for two consecutive tax periods shall
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Formation of GoM as Recommended by the GST Council in Its 31st Meeting held on 22.12.2018
GST
Dated:- 22-12-2018
The GST Council in its 31st meeting held today at New Delhi has approved the proposal to form a 7 Member Group of Ministers to study the revenue trend, including analysing the reasons for structural patterns affecting the revenue collection in some of the States. The study would include the underlying reasons for deviation from the revenue collection targets vis a vis or
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
In-Principle approval given for Law Amendments during 31stMeeting of the GST Council
GST
Dated:- 22-12-2018
The GST Council in its 31st meeting held today at New Delhi gave in principle approval to the following amendments in the GST Acts:
* Creation of a Centralised Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) to deal withcases of conflicting decisions by two or more State Appellate Advance Ruling Authorities on the same issue.
* Amendment of section 50 of the CGST Act to pro
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Mineral Sand Excavation and Transport Classified as 'Transport of Goods' for Taxation Under Goods Transport Agency Rules.
Case-Laws
GST
The composite activity of excavation and moveing / shif
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Printing Bibles on Order Classified as Service Supply Under SAC 9989; Ineligible for Export Benefits in India.
Case-Laws
GST
Classification of supply – The Applicant’s activity of printing
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Private Railway Siding for Raghunathpur TPS Classified as Composite Works Contract, Taxed at 12% Under Agreement with DVC.
Case-Laws
GST
Construction of a private railway siding for carriage
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
WHAT MAY TRIGGER SUSPICION IN GST
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 22-12-2018
We all know that GST is a tax law which is largely an e-tax with every-thing from registration to appeals being filed online and every data is online subject to sharing among tax officials as well as business intelligence by the tax authorities. Tax officials could probe the following transactions or may have reason to initiate enquiries.
Following are few illustrative areas which may trigger suspicious business / trade practices in GST regime and raise alert at the revenue authority's end:
* Substantial carry forward of input tax credit on closing stock as on 30.06.2017 (GST applicable w.e.f. 1.7.2017) .
Major c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ment of goods.
Linking of major purchase bills / sales bills with e-way bills may give leads on fictitious billing.
Any substantially high input tax credit claims should raise doubts. Similarly, input tax credit foregone may also be probed.
Reconciliation of audited financial statements with returns furnished under GST [Rule 80(3)].
Scrutiny of audit reports if the two auditors (financial / GST) are different.
Examination of major changes in business practices / accounting policies post 1.7.2017.
Scrutiny of stock transfers, free of cost supplies and dealings with related parties.
Wrong carry forward of transitional credits (TRAN-1 return).
Input tax credit lapsed due to no duty paying evidence (may be due to cash transacti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
The Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Delhi (West) Versus Rajesh Jindal
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1350 – PATIALA HOUSE COURT – TMI
PATIALA HOUSE COURT – DSC
Dated:- 22-12-2018
Application No. 3040/18 Case No. 1594/18
GST
SHRI SATISH KUMAR ARORA
1. By this order, I shall decide the application I petition preferred by the applicant / petitioner Commissioner of Central Tax, GST, Delhi (West) seeking cancellation of bail as granted to the accused/ respondent Rajesh Jindal by the Ld. CMM, PHC. New Delhi vide order dated 01.08.2018.
2. Case of the petitioner as per the petition is that accused/respondent alongwith co-accused Adesh Jain was arrested by the officials of the petitioner on 01.08.2018 and was produced before the Ld. CMM of the very same day. Since the Ld. CMM was not available, the respondent/accused and the co-accused were produced before the Ld. Link Magistrate. On the remand application preferred against them, the Ld. Link MM admitted the accused/ respondent on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
before the Ld. Link MM, it was noted by the Ld. MM vide his order dated 01.08.2018 that the offence stated to be made out against the accused persons falls under the provisions of Sec. 132 (1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 and that as per the mandate of the law as provided under clause (4), all the offences under this Act except the offences referred to in sub-sec (5) are non-cognizable and bailable. The offence u/s 132(1)(b) of the Act is the one which falls within the domain of sub-section (5) of Sec. 132 of the CGST Act if the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds Rs. 5 crore, thus, making the offence as cognizable and non-bailable. Ld. MM then noted that perusal of the proceedings of GST (West) at that stage revealed that the allegations of tax evasion against accused Rajesh Jindal was for a sum of Rs. 4,58,19,883/- which is less than Rs. 5 Crores and as such, the offence u/s 132(1)(b) being punis
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
endered voluntarily u/s 70 of the CGST Act wherein he stated that they were sharing the profits equally. It is averred that the accused/respondent in his statement again recorded on 03.08.2018 u/s 70 of the CGST Act had further admitted that he and co-accused Adesh Jain were sharing profits and expenses and were selling the invoices to various persons. It is averred that as such, even on the date when the accused/ respondent was produced before the Ld. Link MM, the amount of tax evasion was of more than Rs. 27 crores and as such the offence was covered u/s 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 making it cognizable and non-bailable. In addition, it has been averred that during further investigation, the amount of GST so fraudulently passed has increased to the tune of Rs. 50 crores and is increasing with each passing Step of the investigation.
6. It is averred that the modus operandi of the accused/respondent is that he floated various bogus firms by using the name of poor persons. less educate
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nd issuing fake invoices. The searches carried out at the premises of the accused/ respondent and of the co-accused resulted in seizure of many fake and bogus tax invoices and also of the computers wherein such information was used to be stored.
7. It is averred that as such the order dated 01.08.2018 vide which the Ld. Link MM had made a distinction of the case against the accused/ respondent is patently illegal. It is averred that as such, the applicant I petitioner preferred an application seeking cancellation of bail of the accused/ respondent before the Ld. CMM, PHC which came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2018 which was passed on extraneous considerations. It is averred that thereafter the petitioner/ applicant preferred a petition Crl. M.C. No. 4767 of 2018 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 18.09.2018 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of Sessions u/s 439(2) Cr.PC. Hence, the present application before thi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e accused/ respondent in itself was illegal as the offence alleged is non-cognizable and bailable. It is averred that even as per the allegations made in the application, the offence as disclosed is of the nature of offence u/s 132(1)(f) of the CGST Act, 2017 which is a non-cognizable and bailable offence irrespective of the amount of the tax allegedly evaded. It is averred that the law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in DoIat Ram & ors vs state of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 = 1994 (11) TMI 424 – SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. It is averred that in the application I petition, no cogent or overwhelming Circumstance has been shown meriting cancellation of bail. Instead, false and vague averments have been made in the application which are not substantiated by any document or material.
10. It is further averred that the application procee
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the Authority/ department but, except of making him wait, the authority did not record any statement. Same was the situation in respect of summons dated 26.10.2018. Not only that, accused/ respondent was coerced by the applicant's officers to deposit Rs. 40 Lacs towards the tax allegedly avoided. The accused/ respondent was also not informed of the grounds of his arrest which is in violation of the provisions of sec. 41(B) of the cr.pc and of sec. 69(2) of CGST Act, 2017.
12. It is further averred that the remand application dated 01.08.2018 did not give the description and the nature of offence except of stating that the alleged offence is u/s 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 which is non-bailable and cognizable and that the tax evasion is more than Rs. 5 crores. It is averred that in the remand application, the facts ought to have been stated so as to make out therefrom that offence u/s 132(1)(b) of the Act is made out. Mere allegation of tax evasion in itself is not sufficient to as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ndent is threatening witnesses. Even otherwise, the alleged Statements of the witnesses placed with the record of present application are of 17.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, which in any case, is after the order dated 14.08.2018. It is averred that even the perusal of the alleged statements of the witnesses that they have been threatened would reveal that it has been typed in a standard format and that it is a pointer that these are false statements. Thus, prayer was made to not only dismiss the application of the applicant /petitioner but also to prosecute the applicant I petitioner u/s 340 Cr.PC.
13. Sh. Harpreet Singh, Ld. Senior Standing Counsel for the applicant / petitioner and Sh. J. K. Mittal, Id. Counsel for the accused/respondent were heard and the record was carefully perused.
14. In his submissions, Id counsel for the applicant/petitioner while making a reiteration of the facts as asserted in the application, placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
SCC 280 = 2001 (3) TMI 1053 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
16. Before taking up the rival submissions, it is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of the law.
Sec. 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for the punishment for certain offences. It lays down:-
(1) Whoever commits any of the following offences, namely:-
(a) supplies any goods or services or both without issue of any invoice…
(b) issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilization of input tax credit or refund of tax
(c) avails input tax credit using such invoice or bill referred to in clause (b).
(d) collects any amount as tax….
(e) evades tax, fraudulently avails input tax credit or…….
(f) falsifies or substitutes financial records or produces fake accounts or documents or furnishes any false information with an intention to evade payment of tax due unde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
exceed five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
(iii) In the case of any Other offence……
(iv) In cases where he commits or abets the commission of an offence specified in clause (f) or clause (g) or clause (j), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.
(2) Where any person convicted of an offence under this section is again convicted….
(3) the imprisonment referred to in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall….
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all offences under this Act, except the offences referred to in sub-section (5) shall be non-cognizable and bailable.
(5) The offences specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) and punishable under clause (i) of that sub-section shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
Now, comi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rder dated 01.08.2018 had, therefore, formed the opinion that offence u/s 132(1)(b) Of the CGST Act is attracted to the facts presented before him. Also, the contention of Id. Counsel for the accused/ respondent that the allegations disclosed the offence u/s 132(1)(f) of the CGST Act, again has no merits as the said clause concerns the falsification of the financial records or the statements of account for evading tax. As noted, in the present case, the allegations are of wrongfully availing input tax credit on the basis of invoices without actual supply of goods and it squarely falls within clause (b) of sub-section (1) of sec. 132 of the CGST Act.
The other aspect is of the Ld. Link MM having formed the view that from the material available on record, the allegations of tax evasion against the accused/ respondent was of less than Rs. 5 crores and as such taking out the Offence from the purview of sub-section (5) of Sec. 132 of the Act, thus, making it non-cognizable and bailable. Ad
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o bail. Going further, even if it is to be believed that the amount of alleged tax evasion as on the date of production of the accused/respondent upon his arrest was less than Rs. 5 Crores, still the applicant by its application preferred before the Ld. CMM clearly averred that now the tax evasion is around 8.5 crores, thus, making the offence Cognizable and non-bailable. The Ld. CMM vide order dated 14.08.2018 formed the opinion that mere increase in the amount of tax evasion in itself is no ground to cancel the bail already granted when there was no allegation of either the accused / respondent attempting to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or making an attempt to flee from justice. Admittedly, except of the plea of tax evasion being of about 8.5 crores, the applicant/ petitioner in its application for cancellation of bail preferred before the Ld. CMM did not take any other ground.
In respect of Cancellation of bail, the law is well settled that very cogent and ov
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ion preferred before this Court, the ground additionally taken up by the applicant I petitioner is of the accused/respondent having extended threats to the witnesses who as per the applicant are those persons who were used as dummy proprietors of the bogus firms by the accused I respondent and the co-accused. This is a serious issue as it has the effect of tampering with the evidence and also of influencing the witnesses who may otherwise come up before the applicant/ department against the accused/ respondent. Id. Counsel for the accused/ respondent contended that the statements of the witnesses who have alleged that they are being threatened by the accused / respondent cannot be believed as these statements are doctored statements having been prepared only to Cause undue harassment to the accused/ respondent and to falsely implicate him in the present case. This contention of Id counsel has no basis as this is not the Stage to conduct an inquiry as to the veracity of these statements
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and Comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial”. It was further Observed that “While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or Vade the due Course of justice. But, that is not all.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ely result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society”.
As already noted, not only there are serious allegations against the accused/ respondent of his having made fictitious sales of value of more than Rs. 200 crores and having consequently caused loss to the government of the GST evasion/wrongful availment of input tax credit of the value of more than Rs. 27 Crores, it is also alleged that the accused/respondent had indulged in the act of threatening the witnesses who were otherwise coming forward to give their statement to the department/petitioner as to how the bogus firms were created and how their documents were misused. There are, thus, merits in the application of the applicant/ petitioner seeking cancellation of bail of the accused / respondent. The application is accordingly allowed and the order granting bail to the accused/ respondent is hereby set aside. Accused I respondent is taken into custody and is directed to be produced before the Ld.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
WHAT GST COUNCIL SHOULD DO ?
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 21-12-2018
GST Council is meeting on Saturday, 22nd December, 2018, perhaps for the last time in 2018 and for the first time after recent elections in few states. With the dates for filing GST Annual returns already postponed to March 2019, this meeting is likely to focus on GST rate cuts to bring further rationalisation in rate structure in India. This meeting may also address the woes of several trade concerns regarding taxability of certain goods and services, which are widely consumed across India.
In view of the fact that India goes to general elections for Parliament in less than six months from now (May, 2019) and the recent s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
as surrender of registration
* Number of returns may be reduced
* Payment of tax be allowed on cash basis or on quarterly basis
* TDS / TCS may be made non-applicable
* All types of payment of tax under RCM to be with held
* 'Aggregate turnover' threshold may be increased for both services and goods
* Composition scheme to be expanded
* Rate of interest on delayed payment be reduced for MSMEs.
* Exemption from audit of accounts under GST, if already audited otherwise
* Repetitive billing to be allowed on consolidated basis
* No tax on advance money received
* Export procedures to be simplified further
* Time bound processing of refunds pending verification
* Special facilitation centres for assistance in filing / p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GSTIN on E-Way Bill
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar Dated:- 21-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 25-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
In Some cases of dispatch wherein the billing address of the customer is Maharashtra & shipping address is other than Maharashtra. While preparing E-Way Bill GSTIN No is mentioned Bill to party & there in no field to mention the Shipp to Party GSTIN No. in E-Way Bill form. However, recently as informed by the transporters,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST UNDER REVERSE CHARGE
Query (Issue) Started By: – mohan sehgal Dated:- 21-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 25-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
A registered dealer is availing legal consultancy from an advocate firm interstate..
The dealer is in U.P. and the Legal Firm of advocates is in Delhi…
The dealer in U.P. has to deposit 18% GST under RCM on the Invoiced value of the legal consultancy…
Whether the dealer should deposit the GST amount under RCM in IGST
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Indian Army's Hire of Non-AC Vehicles Not Exempt from GST; 5% Rate Applies if No Input Tax Credit Used.
Case-Laws
GST
Rate of GST – supply of non-air conditioned vehicles on hire to Indian Army – Contract carriage – The Service provided by the applicant is not exempted under Notification No. 12/2017 as this Service does not fall under ‘non-airconditioned contract carriage’ category – Rate of GST is 5% if credit is not availed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, anno
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Applicant Authorized to Issue E-Way Bill with 'Bill To' M/s. RSE/RPG and 'Ship To' M/s. X.
Case-Laws
GST
Supply – e-way bill – The applicant can issue an e-way bill in which the ‘bill to’
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST Applies to Energy-Efficient Street Lighting Services with Infrastructure; Not Exempt as “Pure Services” Due to Goods Involvement.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – Supply of goods or not – pure services – providing energy efficient street lighting services with infrastructure to BMC – pure service should mean pure unadulterated service not mixed with any other element (in this case without any mixture of goods) – Benefit of exemption is not available.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Bounce Charges Under GST: Considered Supply and Liable to Tax as Penalty or Liquidated Damages.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – penalty/ liquidated damages – supply of service or not – Whether th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
APPELLATE ADVANCE RULINGS IN GST ON SOLAR PLANTS
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 21-12-2018
The orders of Appellate Advance Ruling Authority (AAAR) have started pouring in. In this article, to recent Appellate advance rulings on solar power plants and works contracts in relation thereto are discussed.
Appellate advance ruling on works contract and rate of GST (AAR ruling affirmed )
M/s. Fermi Solar Farms Private Ltd. (Appellant) is engaged in operation of renewable energy power plant projects. These typically include operation of solar power plants set up across India for generation and distribution of electricity generated. The appellant is emerging as a leading builder of renewable energy projects.
The Appellant filed an Application for Advance Ruling for seeking clarification basis the draft contracts of the Appellant, in view of the provisions of 'composite supply' and the rate of tax provided for Solar Power Generating Syst
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and operation of a solar photovoltaic plant which is in the nature of a 'works contract' in terms of clause (119) of Section 2 of the GST Act, and hence, should be taxable at the rate of 18%
* In the absence of any documents, the AAR was not able to deal with the question regarding applicability of concessional rate of tax on parts of solar power generating system in the present proceedings.
* With regard to the question whether benefit of concessional rate of 5% of SPGS and parts thereof would be available to sub-contractors, it was held that no documents were provided and hence this question was not dealt with in the proceedings.
Being aggrieved by the advance ruling, the Appellant preferred the appeal before AAAR belatedly as the AAAR was not constituted. The AAAR condoned the delay.
It was ruled that the agreements tendered in support of this question are for setting up and operation of a solar photovoltaic plant and are in the nature of a 'works contract' in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ant entered into contracts with various Developers who desired to set up and operate solar photovoltaic plants for supply of power generated. In various cases, the Appellant also is a Project developer wherein it is engaged in operation of renewable energy power plant projects.
Typically, a contract is entered into by the Appellant to do end to end setting up of a solar power plant which includes supply of various goods (such as modules, structures, inverter transformer etc.) as well as complete design, engineering and transportation, unloading, storage and site handling, installation and commissioning of all equipments and material, complete project management, civil works/construction related services for setting up of a functional solar power plant.
In the instant case, the contract entered into by the Appellant included end to end activities i.e. supply of various goods and services and hence is for the supply of solar power generating system.
The intent of the contract is that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
site supply. There is a supply of goods and services. They are naturally bundled in the sense that the goods and services may be required to fulfill the intention of the buyer in giving the contract. The supply of goods and services are provide as a package and the different elements are integral to flow of supply i.e. one or more is removed, the nature of the supply would be affected. Thus, from a reading of the entire contract as well as from the definition of composite supply what can be easily gathered is that the buyer has given a contract for setting up Solar Power Generating Supply to the appellant and therefore, it is single composite supply of goods and services and installation thereof.
The contract for providing the design, procurement, supply, development, testing and commissioning of the plant which includes the supply of both goods and services is a composite supply as per the definition in the Act. There are two taxable supplies- one of goods and the other of services a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
IN RE: ASHOK RUBBER INDUSTRIES
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1007 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS WEST BENGAL – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 236 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS WEST BENGAL – AAR
Dated:- 21-12-2018
Case No. 37/2018 – Order No. 26/WBAAR/2018-19
GST
S/Shri Parthasarathi Dey and Sydney D'Silva, Members
Shri Nitin Shah, Authorized Representative, for the Assessee.
ORDER
The Applicant, stated to be a manufacturer of rice polisher made of flexible and elastic rubber, seeks a ruling on classification of the goods. Advance Ruling is admissible under Section 97(2)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Acts, 2017 (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “the GST Act”).
The Applicant submits that the question raised in the A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hibits this Authority from admitting any application where the question raised is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of the applicant under any provisions of the GST Act. It does not distinguish between stages or nature of the proceedings. Any action lawfully taken under any provisions of the GST Act is, therefore, to be construed as proceedings under the Act.
It appears from records that the Application was filed online on 22-11-2018, whereas, as the above central authority submits, the proceedings under Section 71 had been initiated on 31-7-2018. The Applicant did not dispute that officials from the concerned authority had visited his places in connection with the investigation, and its subject matter was the same
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Mumbai South
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 510 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 21-12-2018
Appeal No. ST/86636/2018 – A/88167/2018
Service Tax
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
Shri Rajiv Luthia, CA for the appellant
Shri O.M. Shivdikar, AC (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Denial of cenvat credit on service tax paid against unregistered premises taken on rent is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case is that appellant is a Private Ltd. Company engaged in manufacturing and providing services as commission agent for principals located outside India against which it receives commission charges in convertible foreign exchange. Appellant availed cenvat credit on service tax paid on input services of renting of immovable property namely premises no. 67 at Atlanta, Nariman Point, Mumbai and premises no. 65. Input credit against premises no. 67 was refused as it was unregistered p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
or reversal of cenvat credit as per Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, it should not have refused credit on renting of premises. Referring to the orders-in-original passed in respect of both the show-cause notices vide annexure 7 and 8, the ld. Counsel for the appellant also argued that principle of equity and fair play demand that the department should stick to its stand and not to jumble up different provisions in demanding duty from both the counts. Referring to judicial decision in the case of CST vs. Pangea 3 Legal Database Systems Pvt. Ltd. and order passed by this Tribunal on 02.08.2018 in respect of the same issue of the appellant for the subsequent period, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that credit availed by the appellant against renting of unregistered premises was admissible for which he prays for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. In response to such submissions, ld. AR for the department has not only supported the reasoning and rational
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er-in-original concerning reversal of cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(1), the adjudicating authority vide order dated 23.08.2016 in para 15 has given his finding that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence to support the claim that premises no. 67 is not used for providing exempted services or manufacturing activities and ultimately he confirmed the reversal of proportionate credit as demanded in the show-cause. If this is the finding of the adjudicating authority, it is not understood as to how, he being the same person in position passed another order just two days before on 23.08.2016 stating that renting of premises at unit no. 67 has no nexus with the output service which is provided by the assessee from unit no. 65. Admittedly, appellant has reversed the credit basing on Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules in proportion to its dutiable and exempted services. This being the factual position and the documents on record, it cannot be said that appellant is to be penalise
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s Omax Autos Ltd., Gurgaon Versus State of Haryana and others
GST
2019 (1) TMI 416 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 148 (P & H)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
CWP-37912-2018
GST
MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate
ORDER
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow its claim for transfer of eligible transitional credit amounting to Rs. 9.83 crores or to decide the representations (Annexure P-11 Colly) moved by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is registered under the GST in the State of Haryana having registration No.GSTN 06AAACO2190C3ZB and is also registered under the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, Central Excise Act, 1944 a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
P-6 Colly) regarding the non-reflection of balance Cenvat Credit carried forword in the last return and for manually submission of GSTR-3B and Trans-I due to GSTN problem, but no response has been received till date. Since the petitioner had a credit of Rs. 1.68 crores on account of invoices raised by the vendors/service providers during July, 2017 for input/input services provided prior to 1.7.2017, the Form Tran-I originally filed by the petitioner on 25.8.2017 was revised on 27.12.2017 and the revised Tran-I (Annexure P-8) was submitted vide e-mail dated 27.12.2017 (Annexure P-7) upon which respondent No.1 assigned ARN as AA061217021933E. The petitioner also furnished details of total Cenvat Credit of Rs. 9.83 crores. As the ITC was not being reflected while punching other parts of Form Tran-1, the petitioner was unable to claim the ITC under the GST Act. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide circular dated 3.4.2018 (Annexure P-9) notified an IT Grievance Redressal Me
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nd the IT Redressal Committee constituted for that purpose. In view of the circular dated 3.4.2018 (Annexure P-9) and the order (Annexure P-10) passed by this Court, the petitioner vide letters dated 21.5.2018, 3.8.2018 and 16.8.2018 (Annexure P-11 Colly) to respondent No.6 for redressal of its grievances, but to no effect.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has moved the representations dated 21.5.2018, 3.8.2018 and 16.8.2018 (Annexure P-11 Colly) before respondent No.6, but no action has so far been taken thereon.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.6 to forward the representations dated 21.5.2018, 3.8.2018 and 16.8.2018 (Annexure P-11 Colly) to the IT Redressal Committee concerned within next fifteen days after verification by the GSTN
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. PORT LAND IMPEX Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. V, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COMPLEX, KENATHUPARAMBU, KERALA
GST
2019 (1) TMI 24 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WP (C). No. 42261 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI. M. S. SAJEEV KUMAR
For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP
JUDGMENT
The petitioner imported car accessories from China, cleared the goods through Chennai Port, and transported them to Ernakulam, based on the Ext.P4 e-way bill and Ext.P7 invoice. The vehicle and the goods were detained by the respondent authorities as per the Ext.P5 proceedings, and demanded penalty under Ext.P6. Aggrie
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
HUSKY INJENCTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) PALAKKAD, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PALAKKAD, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. 1, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD
GST
2019 (1) TMI 23 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WP (C). No. 41535 of 2018
GST
MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. RAJESH NAIR AND SRI. JOSEPH PRABAKAR
For The Respondent : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer int
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
can accept the tax and penalty as demanded by them (subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge the same) from the petitioner only through the registered GST Portal of the petitioner.
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondent to release the goods to the petitioner as per the conditions as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
2. This case, as the Government Pleader submits, is covered by a Division Bench's judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018. But before I consider that aspect, I must note the peculiarity of this case. The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Nirman Estate Developers Private Limited Versus Union of India and ors.
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1442 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 3357 OF 2018
GST
AKIL KURESHI AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
Mr. Abhishek Rastogi with Mr. Ankit Shah with Ms. Rashmi Deshpande i/by M/s. Khaitan & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Special counsel for Respondent No.3.
P.C.:
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Notification No.4 of 2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018 and Notification No.4 of 2018-State Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018. The basic grievance of the Petitioner is that the notifications seek to bring the tax an acti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
